The search for and identification of cures for many life-threatening diseases that plague humans still remains an empirical and sometimes serendipitous process. While many advances have been made from basic scientific research to improvements in practical patient management, there still remains tremendous frustration in the rational and successful discovery of useful therapies particularly for life-threatening diseases such as cancer, inflammatory conditions, infection, and other conditions.
Since the “War on Cancer” began in the early 1970's by the United States National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a wide variety of strategies and programs have been created and implemented to prevent, diagnose, treat and cure cancer. One of the oldest and arguably most successful programs has been the synthesis and screening of small chemical entities (<1500 MW) for biological activity against cancer. This program was organized to improve and streamline the progression of events from chemical synthesis and biological screening to preclinical studies for the logical progression into human clinical trials with the hope of finding cures for the many types of life-threatening malignant tumors. The synthesis and screening of hundreds of thousands of chemical compounds from academic and industrial sources, in addition to the screening of natural products and extracts from prokaryotes, invertebrate animals, plant collections, and other sources from all over the world has been and continues to be a major approach for the identification of novel lead structures as potential new and useful medicines. This is in addition to other programs including biotherapeutics designed to stimulate the human immune system with vaccines, therapeutic antibodies, cytokines, lymphokines, inhibitors of tumor blood vessel development (angiogenesis) or gene and antisense therapies to alter the genetic make-up of cancer cells, and other biological response modifiers.
The work supported by the NCI, other governmental agencies both domestic and foreign in academic or industrial research and development laboratories has resulted in an extraordinary body of biological, chemical and clinical information. In addition, large chemical libraries have been created, as well as highly characterized in vitro and in vivo biological screening systems that have been successfully used. However, from the tens of billions of dollars spent over the past thirty years supporting these programs both preclinically and clinically, only a small number of compounds have been identified or discovered that have resulted in the successful development of useful therapeutic products. Nevertheless, the biological systems both in vitro and in vivo and the “decision trees” used to warrant further animal studies leading to clinical studies have been validated. These programs, biological models, clinical trial protocols, and other information developed by this work remain critical for the discovery and development of any new therapeutic agent.
Unfortunately many of the compounds that have successfully met the preclinical testing and federal regulatory requirements for clinical evaluation were either unsuccessful or disappointing in human clinical trials. Many compounds were found to have untoward or idiosyncratic side-effects that were discovered during human clinical Phase I dose-escalation studies used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and side-effect profile. In some cases, these toxicities or the magnitude of their toxicity were not identified or predicted in preclinical toxicology studies. In other cases, chemical agents where in vitro and in vivo studies suggested a potentially unique activity against a particular tumor type, molecular target or biological pathway were not successful in human Phase II clinical trials where specific examination of particular cancer indications/types were evaluated in government sanctioned (e.g., U.S. FDA), IRB approved clinical trials. In addition, there are those cases where potential new agents were evaluated in randomized Phase III clinical trials where a significant clinical benefit could not be demonstrated; such cases have also been the cause of great frustration and disappointment. Finally, a number of compounds have reached commercialization but their ultimate clinical utility has been limited by poor efficacy as monotherapy (<25% response rates) and untoward dose-limiting side-effects (Grade III and IV) (e.g., myelosuppression, neurotoxicity, cardiotoxicity, gastrointestinal toxicities, or other significant side effects).
In many cases, after the great time and expense of developing and moving an investigational compound into human clinical trials and where clinical failure has occurred, the tendency has been to return to the laboratory to create a better analog, look for agents with different structures but potentially related mechanisms of action, or try other modifications of the drug. In some cases, efforts have been made to try additional Phase I or II clinical trials in an attempt to make some improvement with the side-effect profile or therapeutic effect in selected patients or cancer indications. In many of those cases, the results did not realize a significant enough improvement to warrant further clinical development toward product registration. Even for commercialized products, their ultimate use is still limited by suboptimal performance.
With so few therapeutics approved for cancer patients and the realization that cancer is a collection of diseases with a multitude of etiologies and that a patient's response and survival from therapeutic intervention is complex with many factors playing a role in the success or failure of treatment including disease indication, stage of invasion and metastatic spread, patient gender, age, health conditions, previous therapies or other illnesses, genetic markers that can either promote or retard therapeutic efficacy, and other factors, the opportunity for cures in the near term remains elusive. Moreover, the incidence of cancer continues to rise with an approximate 4% increase predicted for 2003 in the United States by the American Cancer Society such that over 1.3 million new cancer cases are estimated. In addition, with advances in diagnosis such as mammography for breast cancer and PSA tests for prostate cancer, more patients are being diagnosed at a younger age. For difficult to treat cancers, a patient's treatment options are often exhausted quickly resulting in a desperate need for additional treatment regimens. Even for the most limited of patient populations, any additional treatment opportunities would be of considerable value. This invention focuses on inventive compositions and methods for improving the therapeutic benefit of sub-optimally administered chemical compounds including substituted hexitols such as bisantrene and analogs and derivatives thereof.
Relevant literature includes Foye, W. O., “Cancer Chemotherapeutic Agents,” American Chemical Society, 1995, and Dorr, R. T., and Von Hoff, D. D., “Cancer Chemotherapy Handbook,” Appleton and Lange, 1994.
Therefore, there is a need for compositions and methods including bisantrene or analogs or derivatives thereof that improve the therapeutic benefit of these compounds, particularly for the treatment of malignancies. There is a particular need for combinatorial methods to improve the therapeutic benefit of these compounds.